Why "Free Speech" does not matter
by Herb Ruhs, MD, Unknown News
June 21, 2005
No, I am not trolling. I am serious. I am going for something deep here, so fair warning to those who like the way "their" mind is currently arranged. You may not want to continue. But please do not jump to the conclusion that I am in some way against the untrammeled sharing of thoughts and ideas. I am not.
Many years ago I ran into the idea in the self-help literature (wish I had an attribution) that how we phrase our desires can have perverse effects on what happens in our lives.
The example I encountered then, which still seems the most strikingly salient example of what amounts to a bedrock feature of consciousness, is what happens when people say, "I want to lose weight." Consciousness seems to parse this as follows. What is desired is to be "wanting to loose weight," therefore, the person remains in this condition, cannot loose weight no matter what. Under the influence of the literal interpretation of the expression of desire, our unconscious behavior sabotages our need.
This idea seemed trivial to me when first encountered. It took years of seeing this irony at work, in multifarious ways, for me to come to the conclusion that this is an important, a very important, insight. It turns out that the reality we construct is a very literal one that follows what we say exactly, often, no, usually, in paradoxical ways. By the way, I am losing weight, though perhaps not fast enough because of my conflicting desires for comfort.
Do not "want to be free" -- rather seek out times and places where you are free and, to the extent possible, avoid those where you do not feel free to speak your mind.
When we say "We want Free Speech" we inadvertently call for a continuation of the condition of not having it. Some reflection might show that what we really want is to be in relation to each other in contexts where we can be totally honest and frank, and perhaps most importantly, be understood, be heard. When we rephrase the desire into one of "needing to be heard," there are many important implications.
First, we must confront the imperfect nature of speech. Even under the most favorable circumstances "being truly heard" can be a challenge for the speaker as well as the fully-motivated listener. Second, "being truly heard" turns out to be more a problem of finding a "true listener" than of being an effective speaker. Hence, we are likely to make more progress if we concentrate our efforts on listening to others, than by expending our energy on trying to overcome the, admittedly, horrendous challenge of speaking effectively, much less being "allowed" to speak.
There is a real problem of providing egalitarian opportunities to be heard. We must confront our natural need to be enhanced in social status by being seen to be listening to dominant individuals and not to be seen as being influenced by subordinate ones and consequently suffer a loss of status. Are we willing to take the risk of being transformed by someone else's thought, especially if that person has no stigmata of rank?
I am an unabashed structuralist in my current thinking (which may turn out to be as stinking as some of my previous thinking, but, "God knows" I try). In my experience I have yet to encounter a situation where the factor limiting success was the quality of the people involved.
On the other hand, in my experience, the way people choose, or more commonly are "coerced," to relate to each other, is, in EVERY case, the independent variable that determines the value of the happiness equation. In my analysis, the social structures that we subscribe to predetermine the values that will be supported. Large scale human organization is antithetical to any concept of individual freedom of expression. Large scale organizations simply MUST suppress the free flow of ideas. It is not a choice for these entities. If we start coloring outside the lines, these organizations risk extermination.
We were not biologically designed to function this way. Large "public spaces," like the large organizations that exploit them, are social kludges. Even when they produce desirable outcomes (for instance, how much poetry would we go without, without the large-scale phenomena of "publishing") large organizations are unnatural. They are clever cheats applied to basic human biology. Basic human biology is just fine, thank you.
The dominant cultural inventions of our day, artificial hierarchies, mass markets, war, and all the rest of the baggage of "civilization," are just what happened when some people discovered that they could use coercive force to make other people into their slaves. The rest is what we call "history."
The terms "civilization" and "history" are the two most successful propaganda words ever invented. What we habitually call "history" isn't, and "civilized" we are not.
We, I not so modestly suggest, hoist ourselves on our own petards when we demand "Free Speech Rights" in situations that were designed specifically to make honest and direct communication impossible. Two consequences: (1) If we wish to enjoy the benefits of the basic survival strategy involved in sharing our thinking and having other people LISTEN, we must choose to invest our energy in those situations, those social constructs, that allow this (Quaker Dialog comes to mind). (2) We must actively work to construct those social venues where sharing and listening are not the terrible struggle that we encounter when we attempt, often courageously, to say things that some people, with the power to punish and retaliate, do not want to hear.
Just a word about a serious frustration that we all must repeatedly deal with in our attempts to form Community. Needy people cannot just stop being needy. The emotional boost that is involved when we find people actually listening, or at least allowing us to speak, is a powerful drug, right up there with cocaine and purified sugar. Mutual respect requires a commitment to restraint. This ability cannot be taught or learned outside of a relationship. So when we get together to converse, we need to be willing to gently confront people who are there primarily to feed their attention jones.
On the other hand, just because someone has nothing cogent to say does not mean that they do not deserve an opportunity to be heard. However, this level of connection needs to be confined to small groups where the intense feelings that come up can be dealt with in a humane and loving way, without allowing the emotional needs of a few to dominate the intellectual needs of the many. People who desperately want to talk about or display their personal problems at the expense of the group process are like suicide bombers in the dialog space. They must be directly, firmly and humanely dealt with, and not allowed to sabotage intellectual sharing. Dialog is not, contrary to common practice, the same thing as group therapy.
By a process of delegation we can allow ourselves to listen, in larger groups, to members of the even larger group that are perceived as having something valuable to say. It is, however, a mistake to continually look to "experts," no matter how stellar their credentials, and especially when they come from afar, to inform our larger gatherings. Besides, we have plenty of didactic data already. Facts are not our problem. An absence of actual dialog is. People who are slaves to fashion and celebrity are slaves. Pity them, do not follow them.
While I (obviously) enjoy writing, it does not follow that I think that written communication is the answer to our problems. What we writers do is to continually recycle ideas from the past in new and novel ways. From my study, no really new ideas have been written about for a long, long time, probably at least a couple of thousand years.
Our perceptual apparatus evolved to deal largely with direct realities. Pictures, in form or word, are just representations of a reality that is right there in front of our eyes. So let's try to lionize our authors less and elevate ourselves more. A picture is just a picture, not the thing itself.
Community as experienced is a vastly different thing than Community talked about. These things can be symbiotic, but when the picture in our minds is allowed to substitute for the actual experience we are in trouble. Recorded music is not the same as live music, even when "recorded live." Reality TV is just real TV, not reality. Reading about liberation is not a substitute for liberation itself.
While I personally enjoy bearding the powerful, I recognize, reluctantly, that, almost by definition, POWER DOES NOT LISTEN, IT TELLS. By all means, continue to challenge censorship and taboo in the public space. At the very least, the reaction of the reactionaries, to our efforts to make them listen, helps us to underline and amplify our contraband messages.
But, please, do not label this "Free Speech." It is courageous speech, for sure, but it is not "Free," not as long as one must take a risk by trying to be heard and must feel anxious about being seen listening.
So honor those places, like Unknown News, that actually are "free speech zones," and call the rest what they are "coerced speech zones" that should be condemned, torn down, and replaced by real, and virtual, places where we can be simply human, the way we were constructed by our evolutionary past to function optimally. There is nothing wrong with preaching to the choir (as long as they are enjoying the sermon).
In fact, the real problem is how to get more people to join the choir and stop listening to the propaganda that has been so cleverly designed to mystify and mislead. Let us make "the choir" the place to be.
Do not seek Power by trying to "speak truth to Power." Do not seek Power at all. Seek to destroy Power so we can simply live simply.
That said, I think I will now let my legs do the walking, instead of my fingers, and take the crying cats out for a walk on this most beautiful of days.
Peace through community,
herb
|
|
When we say "We want Free Speech" we inadvertently call for a continuation of the condition of not having it.
Some reflection might show that what we really want is to be in relation to each other in contexts where we can be totally honest and frank, and perhaps most importantly, be understood, be heard.
When we rephrase the desire into one of "needing to be heard," there are many important implications.
First, we must confront the imperfect nature of speech.
Even under the most favorable circumstances "being truly heard" can be a challenge for the speaker as well as the fully-motivated listener.
Second, "being truly heard" turns out to be more a problem of finding a "true listener" than of being an effective speaker.
Hence, we are likely to make more progress if we concentrate our efforts on listening to others, than by expending our energy on trying to overcome the, admittedly, horrendous challenge of speaking effectively, much less being "allowed" to speak.
|
|
|
We were not biologically designed to function this way.
Large "public spaces," like the large organizations that exploit them, are social kludges.
Even when they produce desirable outcomes (for instance, how much poetry would we go without, without the large-scale phenomena of "publishing") large organizations are unnatural.
They are clever cheats applied to basic human biology.
Basic human biology is just fine, thank you.
The dominant cultural inventions of our day, artificial hierarchies, mass markets, war, and all the rest of the baggage of "civilization," are just what happened when some people discovered that they could use coercive force to make other people into their slaves.
The rest is what we call "history." The terms "civilization" and "history" are the two most successful propaganda words ever invented.
What we habitually call "history" isn't, and "civilized" we are not.
We, I not so modestly suggest, hoist ourselves on our own petards when we demand "Free Speech Rights" in situations that were designed specifically to make honest and direct communication impossible.
Two consequences: (1) If we wish to enjoy the benefits of the basic survival strategy involved in sharing our thinking and having other people LISTEN, we must choose to invest our energy in those situations, those social constructs, that allow this (Quaker Dialog comes to mind).
(2) We must actively work to construct those social venues where sharing and listening are not the terrible struggle that we encounter when we attempt, often courageously, to say things that some people, with the power to punish and retaliate, do not want to hear.
|
|
|
© by the author.
What do you think?
There's much more than this at Unknown News.
|
